The catholic church is well confused, they believe that Jesus is actually God. Even though Jesus prays to God (himself??) and refers to God many times as 3rd person. And this leads to Mary being the "mother of God" which is insane imo. How can someone be the mother of god if god created everything.?
Well, you can interpret the concept of a Holy Trinity as more than one god, but Christian theologian could explain the Trinity better than I could. In a nutshell, God is made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God simultaneously is 3 people. Matthew 28:19 addresses all 3 and John 10:30 cites that Jesus said he and the Father were one being. The book of John addresses the trinity better than the other books even though the word "trinity" wasn't used to describe it until later. So it's not a matter of confusion, but interpretation of a Book we regard as the Word of God.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
Well, you can interpret the concept of a Holy Trinity as more than one god, but Christian theologian could explain the Trinity better than I could. In a nutshell, God is made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God simultaneously is 3 people. Matthew 28:19 addresses all 3 and John 10:30 cites that Jesus said he and the Father were one being. The book of John addresses the trinity better than the other books even though the word "trinity" wasn't used to describe it until later. So it's not a matter of confusion, but interpretation of a Book we regard as the Word of God.
😆 Mythology. 🙄
Why laugh? Bicnarok said that Christians worshipped Jesus out of confusion. All I said is that there is no confusion about it, but the belief that Jesus IS God. No Christian is "confused" about that. No one is pushing it as truth because I know how pushy people are treated in this forum, but I'm explaining why Christians believe what they believe and why there is some controversy in how to regard Mary. If you want to call it mythology, go ahead. But simply calling it mythology does not help a person understand it, which is what I was trying to do.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
Why laugh? Bicnarok said that Christians worshipped Jesus out of confusion. All I said is that there is no confusion about it, but the belief that Jesus IS God. No Christian is "confused" about that. No one is pushing it as truth because I know how pushy people are treated in this forum, but I'm explaining why Christians believe what they believe and why there is some controversy in how to regard Mary. If you want to call it mythology, go ahead. But simply calling it mythology does not help a person understand it, which is what I was trying to do.
There is no logical understanding to Mary, mother of god, and the trinity. It is mythology; I'm not calling it a "name".
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There comes a point were the only answer is "because". How do you debate a person who goes in little circles?
She's not really going in circles. Your response would only have even a sliver of validity if she were pushing the answer she gave you as evidence for something. Attempting to counter or answer an explanation by dismissing it as mythology is rude, makes you look stupid and contributes nothing. It's the same thing as someone claiming that Superman is strong because he is powered by the sun and you saying "No he isn't, because he's fictional." The answer is irrelevant to the explanation and makes you seem like an idiot that has no idea what the other person is doing.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
She's not really going in circles. Your response would only have even a sliver of validity if she were pushing the answer she gave you as evidence for something. Attempting to counter or answer an explanation by dismissing it as mythology is rude, makes you look stupid and contributes nothing. It's the same thing as someone claiming that Superman is strong because he is powered by the sun and you saying "No he isn't, because he's fictional." The answer is irrelevant to the explanation and makes you seem like an idiot that has no idea what the other person is doing.
Any person who thinks that superman is real deserves to have the fact the he is fiction pointed out to them. That is the big difference. People who talk about superman know that it is fiction, and to point that out would be inappropriate. However, some people really believe in the trinity thing.
I have every right to show my frustration at people who can't see the logical error they are propagating as long as I am not attacking the person personally. When I say something is mythology, am I attacking the person?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Any person who thinks that superman is real deserves to have the fact the he is fiction pointed out to them. That is the big difference. People who talk about superman know that it is fiction, and to point that out would be inappropriate. However, some people really believe in the trinity thing.
She wasn't making a case anything being true. She was giving you a ****ing explanation with the explicit note that she wasn't pushing it as any sort of truth. Your response was stupid and irrelevant to the issue.
Whether you consider it ranting or not, posting just "mythology" doesn't contribute much no matter how you slice it. You're generally respectful, but in a thread that addresses something specific to Christianity, calling Christianity mythology is really inappropriate since by participating, you imply you are seeking an answer (whether you believe it truth or just a way to explain the mythology) to the question posed. You have to accept a thread's premise to have your participation in it valid.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
Whether you consider it ranting or not, posting just "mythology" doesn't contribute much no matter how you slice it. You're generally respectful, but in a thread that addresses something specific to Christianity, calling Christianity mythology is really inappropriate since by participating, you imply you are seeking an answer (whether you believe it truth or just a way to explain the mythology) to the question posed. You have to accept a thread's premise to have your participation in it valid.
My commit wasn't about the thread. My commit was about your circular logic. I was talking to you... Mythology has a way of using circular logic to cover all the loop holes.
Thank about it: Jesus is the son of Mary; Jesus is part of the god head; The god head is one; Jesus is his own father and son and Mary is the mother of god.
That reminds me of Egyptian mythology. It does that because it is mythology. Mythology is not to be taken literally.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
Whether you consider it ranting or not, posting just "mythology" doesn't contribute much no matter how you slice it. You're generally respectful, but in a thread that addresses something specific to Christianity, calling Christianity mythology is really inappropriate since by participating, you imply you are seeking an answer (whether you believe it truth or just a way to explain the mythology) to the question posed. You have to accept a thread's premise to have your participation in it valid.
Don't bother. He's on an ironic mission to save everyone from thinking differently from him.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My commit wasn't about the thread. My commit was about your circular logic. I was talking to you... Mythology has a way of using circular logic to cover all the loop holes.Thank about it: Jesus is the son of Mary; Jesus is part of the god head; The god head is one; Jesus is his own father and son and Mary is the mother of god.
That reminds me of Egyptian mythology. It does that because it is mythology. Mythology is not to be taken literally.
But there was no attempt to prove anything in my post. I was explaining how something was interpreted. If what I said truly is circular logic, then it is not my logic, is it? It is the logic of the belief system I was explaining.